ls1 torque vs lt1 torque
Didnt read through all of the pages so maybe it's answered or maybe its not.
Lt1 has a 5.7 rod and the ls1 uses the 6.100'' rod. The longer the rod, the shorter the dwell time of the piston, making the illusion that it is not producing as much low grunt. It has an extremly smooth powerband, unlike a shorter rod lengthed motor.
Lt1 has a 5.7 rod and the ls1 uses the 6.100'' rod. The longer the rod, the shorter the dwell time of the piston, making the illusion that it is not producing as much low grunt. It has an extremly smooth powerband, unlike a shorter rod lengthed motor.
I have just put a set of ported heads and 1.7RR on my stock cammed/bottom end LT1, about 11.2 compression, so I will have more lift and head flow than an LS1. I plan to dyno soon to compare curves to my previous dyno with just cutout, CAI and tune, which was 281/312 with over 300tq from 2600 up. Although it still feels torquey down low, it pulls much harder up top than before.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
From: POULSBO WA.
I rip LS1's to death on the bottom end at the track by several car lengths...by 3/4 track they start pull'n and it becomes a close race. On the street...stop light to stop light I make them look pretty foolish trying to keep up. The 15 deg heads of the LS1 are a definate advantage having a straighter path to get air and fuel in and out of the motor. Stock cams for these two motors isn't even in the same ballpark.
Teching In
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by koolaid_kid
Not sure that I understand your grammar, but the LT1 is known to be a torque engine versus the LS1 being a high revving engine. I have proven this to myself at the track, I could get them off the line but they beat me on the top end (before the turbo).
Teching In
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Cmon, you all know the real king of street motors...The 82' Mustang GT(The Boss is Back!). That 2bbl, D5 heads that flowed 115/90 at .500, and that imposing single exhaust were unstoppable(and lets not forget the single pattern cam with around .380 lift, so forget about reaching those impressive head flow numbers)....
Seriously though, the LT1 has a Tunnel-ram style intake manifold, how is it able to generate such meaty torque numbers down low? Also, the Z and the Bird both used the same manifold as the vette, right? So, why is the peak torque rating on the vette sooo much higher? I smell some BS on GM's ratings from back then...
Seriously though, the LT1 has a Tunnel-ram style intake manifold, how is it able to generate such meaty torque numbers down low? Also, the Z and the Bird both used the same manifold as the vette, right? So, why is the peak torque rating on the vette sooo much higher? I smell some BS on GM's ratings from back then...
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 4
From: St. Clair Shores Mi.
Here is my mostly stock LS1 Dyno numbers from last year on a Dynapack Dyno.
Car is `98 Formula M6 W/lid and Flowmaster SOTL catback
109,000 miles and still on the original clutch.
RPM..........HP.........TQ
2750........160........295
3000........175........305
3250........190........308
3500........208........310
3750........225........318
4000........245........320
4250........260........322
4500........273........321
4750........288........317
5000........294........310
5250........300........300
5500........298........285
5750........290........265
6000........287........250
As you can see the Horsepower continues to build nicely while the torque curve is relatively flat peaking above 4000 rpm.
I've also seen comparison dyno graphs between LT1's and LS1's
overlayed and the LT1 had more torque below 2500 rpm after that it was all LS1.
Car is `98 Formula M6 W/lid and Flowmaster SOTL catback
109,000 miles and still on the original clutch.
RPM..........HP.........TQ
2750........160........295
3000........175........305
3250........190........308
3500........208........310
3750........225........318
4000........245........320
4250........260........322
4500........273........321
4750........288........317
5000........294........310
5250........300........300
5500........298........285
5750........290........265
6000........287........250
As you can see the Horsepower continues to build nicely while the torque curve is relatively flat peaking above 4000 rpm.
I've also seen comparison dyno graphs between LT1's and LS1's
overlayed and the LT1 had more torque below 2500 rpm after that it was all LS1.
Last edited by LS1W66; Jul 20, 2007 at 06:27 PM.
I'm sure you are ripping the **** out of ls1's with your 1.94 60's lmfao, obviously they can't drive.
They don't "take the LS1 through the 1/8" either. I used to go to an 1/8 mile track every weekend and I've seen plenty of them run, I saw stock ls1's go 8.4-8.8(saw one running 9.5's, but guy wasnt right in the head).
Stock, or close to stock LT1s were going 9.00-9.2, 9.00 = about 13.8 in the 1/4.
They don't "take the LS1 through the 1/8" either. I used to go to an 1/8 mile track every weekend and I've seen plenty of them run, I saw stock ls1's go 8.4-8.8(saw one running 9.5's, but guy wasnt right in the head).
Stock, or close to stock LT1s were going 9.00-9.2, 9.00 = about 13.8 in the 1/4.
Originally Posted by Bonesaw85
Seriously though, the LT1 has a Tunnel-ram style intake manifold, how is it able to generate such meaty torque numbers down low? Also, the Z and the Bird both used the same manifold as the vette, right? So, why is the peak torque rating on the vette sooo much higher? I smell some BS on GM's ratings from back then...
Originally Posted by LS1W66
Here is my mostly stock LS1 Dyno numbers from last year on a Dynapack Dyno.
Car is `98 Formula M6 W/lid and Flowmaster SOTL catback
109,000 miles and still on the original clutch.
As you can see the Horsepower continues to build nicely while the torque curve is relatively flat peaking above 4000 rpm.
I've also seen comparison dyno graphs between LT1's and LS1's
overlayed and the LT1 had more torque below 2500 rpm after that it was all LS1.
Car is `98 Formula M6 W/lid and Flowmaster SOTL catback
109,000 miles and still on the original clutch.
As you can see the Horsepower continues to build nicely while the torque curve is relatively flat peaking above 4000 rpm.
I've also seen comparison dyno graphs between LT1's and LS1's
overlayed and the LT1 had more torque below 2500 rpm after that it was all LS1.
ls1w66 1994Z28Lt1
RPM..........HP.........TQ HP TQ
2750........160........295 165......313
3000........175........305 175......305
3250........190........308 190......308
3500........208........310 207......310
3750........225........318 220......310
4000........245........320 235......308
4250........260........322 249......307
4500........273........321 260......300
4750........288........317 265......290
5000........294........310 269......285
5250........300........300 270......270
5500........298........285 267......250
5750........290........265 didn't take it quite to 5750
6000........287........250 but looks like if the graph were to keep going
it would read about 260......240
by looking at these comparisons the LS1 has the upper hand for the majority of the time if the graph went all the way down to 2000 rpm mine would look like this
RPM HP TQ
2000......115.....300
2250......130.....310
2500......150.....315
when you compare these two engines it looks like it takes the LS1 til 3750 rpm to start making more power than my LT1 and it gets quite significant when you take a look in the upper range such as 5250 when the HP and TQ curves cross this LS1 is at 300 HP/TQ where my LT1 was at 270 HP/TQ
of course all the very but this seems to be a pretty good comparison between similary modded cars, its also easy to see why if the guy in the LS1 cant drive that an LT1 could get a decent lead going early in a race
Teching In
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 1997bird
The exhaust system's are different and maybe the ECM tuning. Not alot more but a little bit more. Dual exhaust vs. single exhaust. Don't forget to compair LT-1 to LT-1, not the Vette LT-4 M6 car's #'s.
I am, I know the lt4 is a whole different animal, strengthened crank, rods, higher compression, more lift on the cam(or rockers), higher flowing heads/intake, etc. I'm talking about the LT1's. Check the rating of an LT1 Vette, it was rated at 330 lb ft at 4000 rpm....big diff from the 325@2400 or whatever the F-bodies were rated at.
It'd be nice to see a stock dyno reading from both an lt1 vette and lt1 camaro/firebird, to compare.
Teching In
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by lovescamaros28
Someone should put this where everyone can see it so everyone that has a mis-conception that the LT1 does not produce more TQ than the LS1 and any RPM is proven wrong.However the LS1 is the better engine.
One other factor...the LS1 has a larger stroke than the 2nd gen 350s...but 4 less cubic inches, so that should balance out.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 4
From: St. Clair Shores Mi.
Originally Posted by Bonesaw85
The LS1 has higher flowing cylinder heads..what, around 250/175, thats in comparison to the lt1 heads flowing about 220/160. Cam profiles are similar, intakes flow around the same amount of air, compression is damn near identical, and both use the same corked-up exhaust systems. The higher flowing the cylinder heads are, the less low end response there will be on the motor, this really isn't up for debate, it's just a fact. Take a spin in a TPI 350 or a 5.0 mustang. They didn't make all that low speed torque just because of long runner/small plenum manifolds, they also achieved it from corked up cylinder heads that didn't flow for ****...well, the cams were lower profile as well, but you get my point. All other factors being the same, the higher flow the cylinder heads, the less low rpm torque at ones dispense.
One other factor...the LS1 has a larger stroke than the 2nd gen 350s...but 4 less cubic inches, so that should balance out.
One other factor...the LS1 has a larger stroke than the 2nd gen 350s...but 4 less cubic inches, so that should balance out.
Like I stated before and can be seen in 94Z28LT1's numbers I agree the low end of an LS1 is soft in comparison to an LT1.
But in a drag race you don't spend much time in the low rpm's, plus the LS1 rev's quicker and higher also giving it a slight advantage.
Teching In
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by LS1W66
You are correct but torque is also a product of Volumetric Efficiency and the LS1 heads are way more efficient. Peak airflow numbers are great for high HP but low and mid lift flow is how you efficiently fill a cylinder.
Like I stated before and can be seen in 94Z28LT1's numbers I agree the low end of an LS1 is soft in comparison to an LT1.
But in a drag race you don't spend much time in the low rpm's, plus the LS1 rev's quicker and higher also giving it a slight advantage.
Like I stated before and can be seen in 94Z28LT1's numbers I agree the low end of an LS1 is soft in comparison to an LT1.
But in a drag race you don't spend much time in the low rpm's, plus the LS1 rev's quicker and higher also giving it a slight advantage.
But, for low rpm, um, "grunt", restriction actually seems to be the order of the day. The early 4.6L mustangs took a dirtnap at about 5k, but, until about 4K, they'll out-power a later 2valve. And, if you've ever looked at the low and mid-lift numbers of unported Non-pi cylinder heads, whoa boy, they're pretty pathetic.
They were a truck motor in every sense of the word.